The effects of tricyclic antidepressants on breast cancer risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To test the hypothesis that tricyclic antidepressant use increases invasive female breast cancer incidence, we carried out a case – control study within the population of female beneficiaries of the Saskatchewan Prescription Drug Plan aged 535 years from 1981 – 1995 with no history of cancer since 1970. This agency has provided full or partial coverage for outpatient prescriptions to Saskatchewan residents since 1975. We accrued 5882 histologically proven cases and 23 517 controls, randomly selected from the source population and individually matched on age and sampling time. Heavy exposure to any tricyclic antidepressants was associated with an elevated rate ratio for breast cancer 11 – 15 years later (2.02, 95 % confidence interval: 1.34 – 3.04). Post hoc analyses based on the results of genotoxicity studies carried out using Drosophila melanogaster suggested that the increased risk could be attributed to the use of the six genotoxic tricyclic antidepressants, and not to the use of the four nongenotoxic tricyclic antidepressants. However, our results may have been confounded by the effects of other determinants of breast cancer associated with tricyclic antidepressant use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".